This is all complete BS.

Reade can’t manage going on Fox? Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there a new thread? Looks like 80 pages before Joe mumbled on Friday could be the reason. A protective dcum never fails.

+100000. New to reading this site so when I saw that I thought ok, welp, this is just another lefty censored blog where discrimination is allowed to run rampant. FTR this is the only thread I read now because it DELIGHTS me to read how hypocritical the democrats are being with this case. The only people who can’t see it are them, so I’m just gonna sit here amusing myself on these comments while DJT is re-elected again

Sure, smiley-face poster. You’ve never been on DCUM before.

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. And the problem Dems have painted FOR THEMSELVES is not “my Democrat candidate accuses of sexual assault VS. YOUR republican candidates accused of sexual assault” but it is the insistence (when the accused was a republican) that we must “#believeallwomen” when it was Politically convenient to do so.
IMO, It’s sad (and hypocritical) that it took THEIR guy being accused to finally bring them to their senses about this! But I think that’s a positive step back to sanity, because the underlying Salem-witch-trials notion of that premise to #metoo is (and has always been) ridiculous and dangerous!

Evidence matters.

If you can’t name the day, year, or location of your alleged assault. And if the people you claime were there are unable to corroborate your story...and there is zero evidence you had ever met your attacker that you claimed was a casual acquaintance ...maybe it happened as you say. But if I’m someone who believes that then Tara Reade’s story is 100x more credible since she can at least recall when/where it happened and there is proof that they met. Standards of credibility matter.

Once more. Most Dems say “Believe Women” or “Listen to Women.” Then decide, after hearing them and listening to the evidence. We all understand that sometimes false charges are made, like the Duke lacrosse team.

You guys have been asked to show “Believe All Women” was ever a widespread Dem mantra. All you could come up with was a single senator who said many other reasonable things. And 3 Senate staffers who taped stuff to their windows.

You wouldn’t want Reps to be represented by the Nazi-slogan waving woman in Illinois last week, would you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden’s own words.

You know, I don't know why all of a sudden 27 years 'this' gets raised.

What’s the "this" if he didn’t do anything.

Why are you parsing “this” in one way when many other possible ways are possible?

Because Democrats are busy drawing a distinction between "Believe women" and "Believe all women". And of course, Clinton famously tried to parse what "is" is.

Please. The debate over "is" was ridiculous. Your attempt with "this" is even sillier. Give it up.

This nonsense about "this" is the Jackson Pollack approach to arguing: throw something at the wall and see if it sticks.

Funny comment since Modern Art a la Jackson Pollack has an audience among Democrats vs Republicans:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/poll-yougov-art-ideology-trump

Anonymous wrote:Why is there a new thread? Looks like 80 pages before Joe mumbled on Friday could be the reason. A protective dcum never fails.

Joe actually did really well on Friday. And that’s without taking a position on whether he or Tara is telling the truth. You just don’t want to admit it.

Exactly. And the problem Dems have painted FOR THEMSELVES is not “my Democrat candidate accuses of sexual assault VS. YOUR republican candidates accused of sexual assault” but it is the insistence (when the accused was a republican) that we must “#believeallwomen” when it was Politically convenient to do so.
IMO, It’s sad (and hypocritical) that it took THEIR guy being accused to finally bring them to their senses about this! But I think that’s a positive step back to sanity, because the underlying Salem-witch-trials notion of that premise to #metoo is (and has always been) ridiculous and dangerous!

Evidence matters.

If you can’t name the day, year, or location of your alleged assault. And if the people you claime were there are unable to corroborate your story...and there is zero evidence you had ever met your attacker that you claimed was a casual acquaintance ...maybe it happened as you say. But if I’m someone who believes that then Tara Reade’s story is 100x more credible since she can at least recall when/where it happened and there is proof that they met. Standards of credibility matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden’s own words.

You know, I don't know why all of a sudden 27 years 'this' gets raised.

What’s the "this" if he didn’t do anything.

Why are you parsing “this” in one way when many other possible ways are possible?

Because Democrats are busy drawing a distinction between "Believe women" and "Believe all women". And of course, Clinton famously tried to parse what "is" is.

Please. The debate over "is" was ridiculous. Your attempt with "this" is even sillier. Give it up.

This nonsense about "this" is the Jackson Pollack approach to arguing: throw something at the wall and see if it sticks.

Anonymous wrote:She must have her voice heard. But why no TV network except for Fox is going to interview her?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

Because the other media has reviewed the case so far and has determined that it isn't credible enough to be journalism. So far, it seems to be more appropriate for the gossip rags. The case has been reviewed by NPR, the NY Times and the Washington Post. All of them said that there were far too many inconsistencies and lack of corroboration or confirmation. They didn't say that it wasn't true, but they've said that it is currently unconfirmable. The news stations have gotten a statement from Biden's campaign and Biden himself has come out and said that it wasn't true. At this point, it is not news or journalism and is only gossip.

TV news sites have far more relevant and newsworthy topics that can be confirmed and can be verified to report. Reporting such a story adds confirmation bias to the story. It has to stand on its own merits before then. Fox News is interviewing her because they do want to add confirmational bias to her story and add validity that so far her story has not shown. At this point, the only real venues for her are conservative biased news like Fox or gossip based news like Entertainment Tonight.

Anonymous wrote:She must have her voice heard. But why no TV network except for Fox is going to interview her?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

CNN, NBC and MSNBC all carried her on their websites. Left-leaning shows like DemocracyNow and NPR have interviewed. I guess the networks see too many discrepancies in her story to give this air time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden’s own words.

You know, I don't know why all of a sudden 27 years 'this' gets raised.

What’s the "this" if he didn’t do anything.

Why are you parsing “this” in one way when many other possible ways are possible?

Because Democrats are busy drawing a distinction between "Believe women" and "Believe all women". And of course, Clinton famously tried to parse what "is" is.

Please. The debate over "is" was ridiculous. Your attempt with "this" is even sillier. Give it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden’s own words.

You know, I don't know why all of a sudden 27 years 'this' gets raised.

What’s the "this" if he didn’t do anything.

Why are you parsing “this” in one way when many other possible ways are possible?

Because Democrats are busy drawing a distinction between "Believe women" and "Believe all women". And of course, Clinton famously tried to parse what "is" is.

She must have her voice heard. But why no TV network except for Fox is going to interview her?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the interns had any information, they would have come forward by now. This was all vetted meticulously by the Obama staff in 2008. There was no there, there; there is no there, there.

How do you know?

Reade specifically named three people in the office who would corroborate her and they all said they had never heard of such a thing and would have remembered it.

It clearly wasn't vetted by Obama. Otherwise, Joe would have known about it when Obama's vetting staff asked him about it before asking him to be his VP.
Or, Joe is lying when he said he knew nothing of these charges.

Given that Tara only came out with her full story last month, and before that she was was tweeting her support for Joe, why do you think Joe or Obama’s vetters would have known about it 12 years ago?

Why do you think she came out with a totally different story a year ago?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the interns had any information, they would have come forward by now. This was all vetted meticulously by the Obama staff in 2008. There was no there, there; there is no there, there.

How do you know?

Reade specifically named three people in the office who would corroborate her and they all said they had never heard of such a thing and would have remembered it.

It clearly wasn't vetted by Obama. Otherwise, Joe would have known about it when Obama's vetting staff asked him about it before asking him to be his VP.
Or, Joe is lying when he said he knew nothing of these charges.

He was vetted. His campaign staff was interviewed when he was considered for VP, and they gave the same answer in 2008 that they gave recently. Tara Reade's name never came up. She was a random staffer and no one knew that there was an outstanding rumor or problem with her.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/david-axelrod-says-obama-team-that-vetted-biden-for-vp-found-no-evidence-of-complaints-or-misconduct-the-name-tara-reade-never-came-up/

Axelrod noted that the vetting team of lawyers was charged with thoroughly examining and dissecting the entire history of any public official, including any salacious rumors or damaging gossip.

“Through that entire process, the name Tara Reade never came up,” Axelrod said, referring to the former Senate staffer of Biden’s who recently accused him of sexually assaulting her in 1993. On Friday, Biden unequivocally denied her claims in person. “No formal complaint. No informal chatter. Certainly, no intimation of sexual harassment or assault from her or anyone else,” Axelrod noted. “The team of investigators, expert in their work, would not have missed it.”

Tbe former Obama aide and current CNN contributor went on to note that Obama and Biden were not close friends before the former chose the latter to run with him on the 2008 Democratic ticket. So, if Obama had deemed Biden any kind of political risk, he would not have picked the Delaware senator to be his vice president.